Agenda item

Retrospective planning application for the raising of a garage roof.

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was a retrospective planning application for the raising of a garage roof and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted the property in question was two doors further along the street at Monks Crescent and highlighted the similarities to the previous application.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor P Conway if he wished to add anything further to his previous comments.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that he would not wish to take up anymore of the Committee’s time, however, he would make a few additional points.  He noted that Belmont Parish Council was supported by three very good public spirited County Councillors, however, Parish Councils were not supported in terms of planning advice and therefore may need to seek its own advice in terms of proposing conditions in future.  He added that it was felt that there had been no discussions with the Applicant as regards why insulation had been included, especially if it as not a requirement.  He reiterated the Parish Council’s previous request that the Article 4 Direction and CDP Policy 16 be reviewed.

In respect of justification, the Principal Planning Officer explained that there was no policy requirement for the Application to make such an explanation why they wished to make such alterations, rather the information provided within the application was sufficient to be able to make a recommendation based on relevant policy.

The Committee Services Officer noted the comments from Local Members, Councillor E Mavin and L Mavin also related to the application at 9 Monks Crescent.

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Bell asked how long the works had been completed and when the retrospective applications had been received.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that planning applications were being determined within around eight weeks, albeit the Committee cycle would lengthen the process to around a couple of months.  Councillor A Bell moved that the application be approved.

Councillor P Jopling explained she appreciated the position of the Parish Council and can understand their frustration in terms of the previous change of use decision.  She noted that left the Committee with a dilemma in terms of looking at applications against policy and also in terms of what the likely additional bedroom.  She noted Members were also not keen on retrospective application, however, the Committee must determine applications that are before them and therefore she would second approval of the application for an increase in garage roof height.

Councillor L Brown agreed that the Committee had to consider the applications that were put before it, adding it was accepted that this application was ‘in principle’ acceptable.  She asked that it be recorded in the minutes that the Committee felt that the applications represented ‘a cynical exploitation of the planning system’.  Councillor J Elmer noted all were aware of what Durham faced in terms of the loss of family homes to become student HMOs, however, there was no evidence of the need for these types of student properties.  He added that there was a tremendous negative impact upon the residents of Durham by cynical landlords.  He noted that the previous change of use decisions had likely been under delegated authority and noted that perhaps if those applications had been called in, the Committee could have looked at the issues raised.  The Chair noted he felt the Committee could all agree with the comments in terms of the cynical nature of the applications.  Councillor P Jopling added she agreed and that Members of the Committee understood the impact on communities where large numbers of HMOs are permitted.  She noted she understood the need for student properties, however, she felt that these types of family homes in these types of areas were not the right properties.

The Chair allowed Parish Councillor P Conway to make a point of clarification.  Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the Parish Council had requested some such change of use applications be considered by Committee, namely 4 Monks Crescent.  He added that the Parish Council made reference within its submissions to a wide range of policies, not just Policy 16, including those within the NPPF and CDP relating to social, economic, environmental aspects, as well as transport and highway safety. 

He reiterated that the Parish Council had also referred to the Article 4 Direction and Policy 16, citing one example where while 25 percent of a street were HMOs, as the area in question was a cul-de-sac, the 100-metre radius within policy showed less than 10 percent HMOs, within policy.  Parish Councillor P Conway added that the Parish Council had taken on board information from Planning Officers as regards other policies within the NPPF and CDP that had material weight as regards HMO applications, and had made reference to such policies within its submissions.  He concluded by noting that there needed to be a balance between Policy 16 and the other relevant policies within the NPPF and CDP.

The Chair noted he agreed with Parish Councillor P Conway, adding that the Committee had refused some HMO applications when looking at that balance between planning policies.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that 4 Monks Crescent was a different application to the two properties on the agenda, being 5 and 9 Monks Crescent.  He added that the change of use permissions had be granted under delegated authority, noting that as the percentage of HMOs within 100 metres had been only 2.1 percent, Officers had been comfortable to approve the change of use without limiting the number of tenants, given the lower percentage of HMOs within 100 metres.  He reiterated that bin and cycle storage may be retained within the garage space, should it be converted to a bedroom, or the landlord may accommodate bin and cycle storage within another area, such as the garden.  He concluded by reiterating the issue being looked at was solely the increase in garage roof height.

Councillor J Elmer noted the comments from Parish Councillor P Conway and the Principal Planning Officer and withdrew his comment in terms of calling-in the previous change of use applications.

The Chair noted that the application had been moved for approval by Councillor A Bell, seconded by Councillor P Jopling and upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions within the Committee report